Despite the grumbling on ARS, Scientology isn't going to be
unraveled with only objective means... This is the simple
message Dorian is delivering to ARS.

What he says is that Scientology is an artistic creation from
the ground up. Artistic creations have been challenged with
objective means since time immemorial and yet very few have
yielded. Science has pieced together an objective story of the
universe, but that hasn't stopped a majority of the world's
population from believing in God.

Dorian will not offer an objective solution to dissolving
Scientology and we can only speculate as to why not. All I can
tell you is what he says -- that were he to acquiesce to what he
sees as the shortsighted demands of ARS critics to take the
opportunity to challenge Art with Art, the chance might be lost
for a very long time indeed. Instead of wheeling out more
evidence for the objective argument, only later to be
disappointed by the fact that most Scientologists ignored it,
Dorian will offer instead a unique way to deal with the
Scientology problem.

My question is this: hasn't anyone on ARS woken up to the fact
that objective arguments of the evils of Scientology have had
only modest effects? The absurd details of its upper level
scriptures have been disseminated all over the internet, yet
Scientology still lives, albeit with fewer members than 10 or 20
years ago. But Scientology has more money, more power, more
influence, less scruples and less tolerance for its enemies than
ever. All the parodies, all the name calling, all the picketing
will not work on its own. I think this is because Scientology is
designed to handle objective and contrary evidence. It's built
to handle counter-attestation --- even those made by qualified
analysts.

I think Dorian wants to come forward with an artful solution
because our conventional, instinctually agreeable strategies
have so far been running up against a brick wall. If you deny
this, you're living in flattering fantasy. If it weren't so,
there would have been no one who needed any help from me, I
wouldn't have been put on the pedestal I seem to have been put
on by many of the people who are now trashing me so relentlessly
at the moment, nor would you care if I abandoned you or lost my
credibility. Like it or not, ARS is largely sound and fury
preaching to the converted.

There is now an opening for a new perspective. If one can
appreciate the disciplined and laborious thinking that went into
crafting the implied messages within Scientology, it's painfully
obvious that the consensus view involving a single, well-read,
super-talented philosopher and author is incorrect. It takes an
enormous amount of work to put together a performance like
Hubbard's. Dorian is suggesting, as some already know, that
there was far too much for one human being to have thought out,
especially while Hubbard was in the midst of his performance.

Those that haven't seen the messages implicit in the work will
naively accept the performer at face value. They'll buy into the
illusion of a peculiar individual with a couple of hundred hours
in each of our 24 hour days. But the true skeptic will wonder.

How did those implied messages get there, and supposedly without
the help of allies? He must have done it all himself, because he
sure didn't have the help of followers --- they're not even
aware the messages are there. So who thought these messages out,
beforehand, then translated them into an effective performance
--- a very, very difficult and time-consuming thing to do? And
why are these messages controlling the Scientologist's behavior?

Is it just coincidence? For the few that are willing to allow
themselves to ask these questions, Dorian offers an expanded
view of the consensus reality.

Dorian has said before that Scientology is evil, and yet he also
does not believe life can be fulfilling without Art. Tracing a
path through these contradictory statements requires a high
level of sophistication. There is good and evil art, and it all
depends on original intent and result. Scientology was designed
to be particularly good at manipulating its followers'
recognition of both of these abstract quantities. It makes
followers think it's the ultimate in goodness, while it makes
unsophisticated observers think that anything that even slightly
resembles it, that could mount an effective challenge to it,
must be bad. Both conclusions are wrong. In this arena, it
requires a very finely tuned sensitivity to correctly separate
the good from the bad. The requirement pushes at the envelope of
what Dorian calls human value recognition capacity. Most people
in the Scientology conflict, excepting just a handful, are
unsophisticated and nowhere near their limiting envelope.

Anyone that objects to an artful approach to the problem of
Scientology is welcome to leave the theater--you know how to
operate a newsreader. But if you stay, please don't spoil the
show with catcalls and rudeness. The curtain goes up, and what
happens? The objectively minded spoilsports in the audience
stand up and vehemently demand to inspect our props. What's
clear is that while these critics of Scientology would make for
excellent guardians of the consensus, many are pitifully unable
to accurately assess intent. Dorian related that in wartime no
doubt we would find them recklessly mowing down their own
artfully disguised allies with "friendly fire", mistaking them
for the enemy.

What the Scientology management would most like is an object, a
real person, or an attestation they can attack with their
standard methods of credibility and character assassination. But
this time, despite the assistance they've been getting from some
of their more clueless allies on ARS, they're not going to get
any of these things.